Held v. Montana

Held v. State of Montana
Court	First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, Helena[1]
Full case name	Held et al. v. State of Montana, Governor Steve Bullock, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Montana Department of Transportation, and Montana Public Service Commission
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	Kathy Seeley[2]

Held v. Montana is a constitutional court case in the State of Montana regarding the right to a "clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations"^{[3]:Art. IX, § 1} as required by the Constitution of Montana.^[4][5] The case was filed in March 2020 by Our Children's Trust on behalf of sixteen youth residents of Montana, then aged 2 through 18.^[6][7] On June 12, 2023, the case became the first climate-related constitutional lawsuit to go to trial in the United States.^[4][5]

The plaintiffs argued that the state's support of the fossil fuel industry had worsened the effects of climate change on their lives, thus depriving them of their constitutional rights.^[4][5] More specifically, the plaintiffs challenged a provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) that prohibited the state from considering greenhouse gas emissions as a factor when deciding whether to issue permits for energy-related projects.^{[8][9][Note 1]}

In its defense, the state claimed that regulators were simply following state law^[10] and argued that any of Montana's contributions to climate change would need to be addressed through the Montana legislature.^[11] The defense called the plaintiffs' case an "airing of political grievances" that is not actionable in court.^[9][11]

On August 14, 2023, Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in favor of the plaintiffs that the limitations on considering environmental factors when deciding oil and gas permits violated the right to a safe environment recited in Montana’s constitution.^[12]

History[edit]

Mining interests heavily influenced the content of the original (1889) Constitution of Montana, causing subsequent laws to highly favor extractive industry,^[5][13] with some historians even calling the state a "corporate colony".^[13] A 1972 constitutional convention added language guaranteeing citizens "the right to a clean and healthful environment"—language that would become central to the Held case.^[5] At the time of trial, Montana was one of only three states with constitutions having environmental protections explicitly recited in their bill of rights, thus avoiding a need for plaintiffs to preliminarily prove they have such rights.^[13]

Despite the 1972 amendment, according to The Guardian, policy experts say Montana officials have shaped state laws around the deeply entrenched financial interests of the fossil fuel industry.^[6] For example, in 2011 the state's energy policy was changed to prohibit the state from considering climate change as a factor when deciding whether to issue new permits.^[5] In the same year, Montana withdrew from the Western Climate Initiative, an agreement among some western American states and parts of Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.^[6][14] In May 2023, Montana Republican lawmakers amended a limitation^{[Note 1]} to the Montana Environmental Protection Act—called the "MEPA limitation"^[8]—to make it what was considered the nation’s most aggressive anti-climate action law.^[15] Separately, state laws passed in spring 2023 explicit forbade local governments from banning fossil fuels in building codes, from banning fuel derived from petroleum, and from requiring new construction to have solar panels.^[16]

In context, in 2023 Montana was the fifth largest coal-producing U.S. state and the twelfth largest oil-producing state.^[5] Moreover, since 2003 the state received nearly $650 million from resource extraction—the eighth highest total in the country.^[6]

In 2011, nonprofit law firm Our Children's Trust asked the Montana Supreme Court to rule that the state has a duty to address climate change.^[5] The court declined the request, a decision that made the group start in a lower court.^[5] On March 13, 2020, Our Children's Trust and other law firms filed the Held v. Montana complaint in the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, in Helena.^[1][4] The judge denied the state's August 2021 motion to dismiss.^[17] In 2022, the Montana attorney general requested that the state Supreme Court take control of the case, asking that discovery be stopped, but the Supreme Court denied both requests.^[5] Although over the preceding decade, youth-led climate change lawsuits had been filed in every state,^[18] only four of the suits filed by Our Children’s Trust outside of Montana case were still pending as of June 2023.^[19] On June 12, 2023, Held became the third climate-related lawsuit in the U.S. to go to trial,^[20] and the first climate-related constitutional law case in the U.S. to reach trial.^[2][4]

On April 14, 2023, State District Judge Michael Moses ruled that the permit for NorthWestern Energy's $250 million Laurel Generation Station on the Yellowstone River in Montana, was cancelled as the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) had misinterpreted the state's environmental law and had failed to consider the long-term consequences of carbon dioxide emissions from the plant,^[21] which are estimated at "23 million tons" that "would impact" the town of Billings that is downwind of the Laurel Generation Station.^[22] In response to the decision by Judge Moses, on April 15, House Bill 971 was introduced, sponsored by Representative Joshua Kassmier R-Fort Benton and was quickly passed into law.^[22] Bill 971 exempted the DEQ from "adhering to air quality and emissions standards when authorizing or changing permits".^[22] A Senate Bill 557 amendment sponsored by Sen. Mark Noland, R-Bigfork, which is very similar to HB 971, and was also a response to the Moses decision on the Laurel plant, was introduced on April 14.^[22]

Legal principles[edit]

The lawsuit is based in part on the state’s constitution as amended in 1972, whose Article IX (Environment and Natural Resources) requires that the "state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations".^[4][3] This passage follows Article II (Declaration of Rights), Section 3 (Inalienable Rights), which states that "All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment..."^[3]

The 2020 Held complaint^{[1]:"Nature of the Action", § 4} challenged the constitutionality of two Montana statutes: (1) the State Energy Policy, which directs statewide energy production and use, and (2) the "climate change exception" in the MEPA, which prohibits the state from considering how its energy economy may contribute to climate change.^[4] Lawmakers repealed the State Energy Policy before trial, causing the claim against it to be dismissed.^[8]

The complaint did not seek financial compensation, but a declaration that the state had violated their constitutional rights.^[2] In addition, the complaint asked the court to prohibit the state from "subjecting Youth plaintiffs" to the unconstitutional laws, to prepare a complete and accurate accounting of the state's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and to require the state to develop a remedial plan or policies to reduce GHG emissions.^{[1]:"Prayer for Relief", pp. 102-104}

The plaintiffs and the state must file proposed findings, due in early July, before the judge makes a ruling.^[23] A judge, not a jury, decides constitutional issues.^[18]

Factual issues[edit]

Plaintiffs' opening statement referred to "heat, drought, wildfires, air pollution, violent storms, loss of wildlife, watching glaciers melt," saying medical and psychological impacts disproportionately impact young people.^[2][24] During their five-day presentation of their case,^[11] almost all of the plaintiffs themselves testified, as did eight plaintiffs' expert witnesses^[11] on topics including climate change, renewable energy, energy policy in Montana, and children's physical and mental health.^[8]

The youth plaintiffs testified as to how they had been harmed by climate change, including impacts from wildfires and related evacuations; extreme temperatures and drought; changing river flow patterns; damage to infrastructure, farms, and businesses; fear of the future, and a sense of loss of control.^[2][7][18] Native American youths testified as to how their traditional ceremonies and food had been affected.^[23][25]

One of the plaintiffs' experts, climate scientist and former IPCC member Steven Running, presented the science underlying climate change, from the greenhouse effect through its impacts specific to Montana.^[2][26][7] Another expert, Stockholm Environment Institute researcher Peter Erickson, testified that Montana emits more greenhouse gases than some entire countries, comparing the emissions created by the energy consumed within the state’s borders in 2019 to the amount emitted by Ireland in the same year.^[27] Clinical psychiatrist Lise Van Susteren, co-founder of the Climate Psychiatry Alliance, described the emotional toll on the plaintiffs when they recognize what lies in their future, characterizing their experience as "pretraumatic stress".^{[Note 2][28]} Mark Jacobson, director of the atmosphere and energy program at Stanford University, testified that the state could transition from fossil fuels—providing ~75% of Montana’s 2018 energy consumption—to having 92% of its energy from renewable sources, in part because Montana's large land area has 330 times the wind energy potential needed to power the entire state.^[16] The case is rare in that it involves questioning climate experts on the witness stand.^[29]

In the defense's case, Montana Assistant Attorney General Michael Russell asserted that the court "will hear lots of emotion, lots of assumptions, accusations", but that climate change "is a global issue that effectively relegates Montana's role to that of a spectator",^[2][26] with "Montana’s emissions (being) simply too minuscule to make any difference".^[27] Some scholars called the state's argument—referring to emissions occurring outside Montana—"whataboutism".^[27] Russell also said that the plaintiffs' case tried to turn a "procedural matter" into "a weeklong hearing of political grievances that properly belong to the legislature and not a court of law."^[11] Although the trial was originally scheduled to last two weeks,^[4] it lasted seven days.^[23] The state’s attorneys called only three witnesses in its single-day case,^[11] closing their case at the end of the sixth day of trial.^[8] The state declined to call its only mental health witness to the stand.^[29] Also, a written report by climate change contrarian Judith Curry—the state's sole climate science witness^[29]—was not entered into the record, nor did Curry testify as originally planned.^[11]

Ruling and appeal[edit]

Judge Seeley's August 14, 2023 judgment ruled in favor of the youth plaintiffs, declaring the 2023 version of the MEPA limitation (HB 971) and a similar 2023 law (SB 557) to be unconstitutional.^[30] The judge's 103-page ruling concluded that the "MEPA Limitation violates Youth Plaintiffs' right to a clean and healthful environment and is unconstitutional on its face".^[30] The ruling stated that the MEPA limitation's prohibition against analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, their impacts on the climate, and their contributions to climate change, were inconsistent with the Montana Constitution.^[30]

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen's spokesperson called the case a "taxpayer-funded publicity stunt" and said that Judge Seeley's ruling was "absurd".^[31][24] The Office of the Attorney General said it would appeal the ruling.^[31][24]

Context and impact[edit]

At the time of trial, Department of Environmental Quality Director Chris Dorrington said that permitting practices would not change if the plaintiffs prevailed, as the agency does not have the authority to refuse to issue a permit that complies with the law.^[10] Furthermore, DEQ Air, Energy and Mining Division Administrator Sonja Nowakowski distinguished procedural laws such as that being challenged, from regulatory laws that can be used as a basis to refuse a permit^[8][10]—saying plaintiff's only redress is to challenge specific permitting decisions.^[8]

The Held decision would not be binding on other states because states' courts separately interpret their respective laws.^[19] Also, at trial the judge said that even if the plaintiffs prevail, she would not order officials to formulate a new approach to address climate change.^[10] However, the judge could issue a declaratory judgment saying officials violated the state constitution.^[10] That declaratory judgment would set a legal precedent for courts to consider cases normally governed by the legislative and executive branches.^[10]

In August 2023, The New York Times and The Washington Post described Held as a "landmark" climate case.^[32][33] Bloomberg described it as a "historic case on harm from climate change".^[12] The Post said that it was the "first ruling of its kind nationwide."^[32] The Guardian called it a "game changer".^[34] Our Children's Trust's founder, Julia Olson, noted that Held v. Montana marked the first time in U.S. history that the merits of a case led a court to rule that a government violated young people’s constitutional rights by promoting fossil fuel usage.^[34]

Similar cases[edit]

• Juliana v. United States, a case filed in 2015 in which 21 young people sued the federal government for violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property by enacting policies that support fossil fuel interests.^[4] In June 2023, the case was permitted to proceed to trial in federal court.^[4]

See also[edit]

• Climate justice
• Just transition
• Fossil fuel divestment
• List of environmental lawsuits
• Climate change in the United States
• Steve Held, father of lead plaintiff Rikki Held

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

External links[edit]

• "The Constitution of the State of Montana" (PDF). courts.mt.gov. Montana Judicial Branch. March 22, 1972. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 28, 2023. (includes original signatures)
• "Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" (PDF). ClimateCaseChart.com. Columbia Law School Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, in collaboration with Arnold and Porter. March 13, 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 31, 2023. (original complaint that started the lawsuit)
• "Photos: Attorneys for Montana, youth plaintiffs make final pitches in climate trial". Independent Record. June 20, 2023. Archived from the original on June 21, 2023. Photos by Thom Bridge, Independent Record.
• Seeley, Kathy (August 14, 2023). "Findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order" (PDF). Montana First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. Archived (PDF) from the original on August 15, 2023. (103-page ruling after trial)